loverofhumanz

Man suffered outdoors very much, for a million years.

Man want both good of indoors and good of out outdoors.

> That giving the state security apparatus more tools to arbitrarily harass people at their discretion is a Bad Idea™.

Measuring heart rate, using a computer which can log its data, is the exact opposite of arbitrary. It's an objective measurement. You don't seem to understand the words that you're using.

Are you somehow unaware of the fact that security personnel, for example TSA at airports, are already empowered to use their own discretion in deciding that particular people seem to merit extra scrutiny?

Any TSA officer can flag any person as suspicious for almost any reason. They don't abuse this power generally because they have very little incentive to and there are checks on it.

> I have absolutely no idea where you're going with this or what makes you believe this is how the world works.

Do you think TSA officers are incentivized to do more or fewer body cavity searches? Do you think they get bonuses for doing them? It's beyond ridiculous that you can't keep your argument straight and have to reference Trump in the context of a discussion about secure environment screening technology.

> And again: picking up a history book will lead you to realise how mistaken your quaint belief is ("incentive to work less"?).

I've almost certainly read far more than you on history and law. I'm likely more experienced, well traveled, and much more concerned about actual infringement on liberties.

Which, I'd argue, is why I'm less concerned about this technology than you. I know what kinds of things actually infringe on people's liberties.

Your weak attempts to talk down to me, while at alluding to non-specific events in history, would embarrass you if you knew enough to be embarrassed.

Some of the responses to me were rude and I calibrated my responses to them appropriately. You stated I was "missing the point" which is more rude than me sincerely asking you to explain your rationale.

Your claims made very little sense. In my view, this potential new technology in no way increases the power of security personnel beyond what they already posses.

Yes, some people will be stressed and nervous for benign reasons. Criminals will also be stressed and nervous.

A good security system will use multiple signals to filter out false-positives.

Explain how it's worse than a camera or thermal camera that detects you sweating? Explain how it increases the incentive to do body cavity searches?

> Today you’re among the people to avoid searching; tomorrow, well… maybe you’ll have a reason to be nervous.

What do you even mean here? Seems entirely incoherent.

> Please supply your dna and biometrics at every entry point of a public roadways. Thank you good citizen.

Hysterical slipper slope nonsense.

Using RF to passively detect someone's heart rate at close range is objectively less intrusive than cameras are.

"Of course there would be many false positives, so it wouldn't be good enough on its own."

"Of course there would be many false positives, so it wouldn't be good enough on its own."